Acceptable Genes: Religious Traditions and Genetically Modified Foods
Edited by Conrad G. Brunk and Harold Coward
(SUNY Press, 2009)
Why is genetically modified food an issue for kosher Jews, halal Muslims, and vegetarian Hindus? How do religious beliefs intersect with ethical and moral views on biotechnology? A new collection of essays explores the links between religion, culture, and GMOs.
In their new book, Acceptable Genes: Religious Traditions and Genetically Modified Foods, Conrad G. Brunk and Harold Coward have compiled a unique set of religious, cultural, and indigenous perspectives on genetically modified foods. Many of us are aware of at least some of the ways biotechnology has invaded the supermarket. But dietary practice often intersects with religious faith, and despite the moral and religious convictions about modified foods, these perspectives have been marginalized in public debate. Oddly enough, religious and moral beliefs may carry more weight with lawmakers and industry regulators than consumer attitudes do. Combating the secrecy surrounding GMOs may only be possible with strong religious and moral arguments for equal tolerance and respect in play.
GMO Pros and Cons
GMOs are organisms that contain genetic material from other sources (like a tomato that has been enhanced by animal DNA in a lab) or organisms from which DNA has been removed. Altering an organism’s DNA can affect traits, measurable or observable quantities such as height, weight, color, or behavior; it is crucial to understand that this new genetic material will be inherited by the organism’s offspring. More broadly, GM foods also include any plant infused with genes from other species. The motivations for this type of scientific perversion are multifaceted and varied. In addition to developing “improved” insect-resistant crops, scientists are able to create advanced pharmaceuticals and treatments for conditions including diabetes, hemophilia, and hepatitis. Genetic disorders can be curbed, and perhaps in the future, eradicated.
At the same time, GM foods have caused considerable ethical controversy over the potential for unknown harm. Particularly in Europe, Japan, and parts of Africa, the uproar over untested, unlabeled GM foods in the food supply has been dramatic. Some of the controversy can simply be labeled Luddite resistance. Yet legitimate concerns about food allergens, environmental degradation, crop homogeneity, and the unfair burden placed on small farmers to keep up in a quickly evolving economy defy the impulse to cast all naysayers as technophobes.
In the United States, GM foods remain largely—if not entirely—unlabeled in supermarkets, making it nearly impossible to determine the scientific or man-made origins of your food. Then again, it’s usually safe to assume that non-organic products contain traces of genetically modified corn or soybeans. As of July 2009, the USDA reported that over eighty percent of corn, soybean, and cotton planted areas contain genetically modified varieties of the respective crops.
Non-Vegetarian Plants?
As Brunk and Coward are careful to point out, no religion or moral code is monolithic. Expert scholars may hold different views than lay practitioners of a particular faith. Throughout the book, lay adherents and expert interpreters alike offer perspectives on how GM foods intersect with their religious and ethical dietary traditions. Each author conducted additional focus groups among their respective discipline or tradition.
In Lyne Létourneau’s dietary overview, vegetarianism is examined as a multifaceted choice. Meat eating is historically conflicted; while consuming meat in some societies is a marker of wealth and class status, in other religious contexts, eschewing flesh consumption is thought to evoke higher consciousness. Splitting her case study into ‘health’ and ‘ethical’ vegetarians, Létourneau argues that most vegetarians (one to 2.5 percent of the US population) choose the lifestyle for health reasons. The “health vegetarians,” according to her, are less ideologically committed to vegetarianism and therefore place less emphasis on organic, non-GM foods than ethical vegetarians. Létourneau’s focus group of ethical vegetarians largely indicated that the transfer of genetic material from animals to plants would violate an animal’s essence and integrity, while additionally causing unknown environmental harm. Through genetic modification, some plants would be rendered non-vegetarian, in a sense. Therefore, both transgenic plant and animal modification—the transfer of animal DNA into plants and vice versa—would require labeling of transgenic organisms to satisfy the group’s ethics. Some of these concerns also emerged in additional religious focus groups for faith that prescribe vegetarianism.
For Jews, there were myriad contradictions in consuming genetically modified foods. Jewish ethics scholar Laurie Zoloth found that among Conservative and Orthodox Jewish focus groups, genetic modification presented little problem, in part because many North Americans participants were largely unaware that they had been consuming transgenic foods. Reform scholars and liberal laypeople presented more opposition. Most participants agreed that food was a central part of Jewish life and agreed that GM foods are technically allowable since they are not specifically forbidden in Jewish texts. But Jewish ethics and kashrut seek to limit overproduction and unnecessary consumption, and genetically modifying animals may constitute hubris in that humans seek to alter God’s perfect creation. Yet while the Mishnah prohibits plant grafting, it does not indicate that Jews cannot use or consume hybrid products or species. When viewed from a health perspective, many Jews surveyed were in favor of genetic modification for therapeutic or medicinal intervention.
Unlike Judaism, Islam has few specific requirements to classify food as inherently good or permissible, and only disallows wine, pork, and its byproducts. The Qur’an states that food is part of living a full life, and caring for one’s physical body—as part of the larger self—is an essential part of salvation. In his essay, Associate Professor of Islamic Studies and Muslim ethicist Ebrahim Moosa examines the ways that Muslim leaders have thus far treated GMOs has both managed risks and with precaution. The influential Saudi-based Council for Islamic Jurisprudence (CIJ) long ago approved GM products for therapeutic use, but its reasons for doing so have been largely shrouded in secrecy. The CIJ decision paved the way for Muslim religious authorities in Indonesia, Malaysia, and North America to approve GM foods. In certain Western Muslim communities, the precautionary approach has been one that favors the viewpoints of Muslim-educated scientists over religious leaders.
Muslim ethical teachings provide few guidelines on food safety, but one conventional ideal of Muslim ethics relates to fitra, the preservation of God-given naturalness. Fitra is central to Muslim ethics and spirituality, and though open to interpretation and distortion, it generally refers to innate intuitive ability to discern between right and wrong. Moosa argues that Muslim inability to probe scientific data relating to GMOs and to more actively engage in debates is a product of location. With many Muslim communities located in the developing world, it can be politically disadvantageous to argue with potentially life-saving technology. While science and technology are often presented as a panacea for issues in the Global South, it remains crucial that religious authorities remain pragmatic when determining their positions on such weighty issues.
Tags: christian, crops, ethics, food, gmo, hindu, jewish, muslim, vegetarian
All plants and animals evolved from a common source, and life forms have evolved to survive by consuming other life forms based on different variations of the basic DNA patterns. The rule should be if something is unhealthy, then it should be consumed in moderation or not at all. If it is poison, then evolution can handle stopping its consumption. Humans don't tell other species what to eat, and there is also no reason to tell other humans what to eat unless it is to support a religious mind control system.
What a load of silliness. GMO's have the potential to cause the whole world damage. If there's anything that we should be "telling other humans" not to eat is GMO's. To think that this is simply a matter of personal "choice" is naive, shortsighted and radically individualistic.
This article makes a pretty convincing argument for how valuable GMOs are, and how there isn't really any valid downside. We have already made improved insect resistant crops and high yield tomatoes. Cheaper drugs have been developed for things like diabetes, hemophilia, and hepatitis. The issue about food allergens is a non-issue because there are already food allergens, and if any new ones show up they will be dealt with like the other ones were, and eventually we will find ways to modify around them. These new crops will help with environmental degredation because farming will become more effecient. Crop homogeneity came from ancient and traditional methods of selecting domemstic crops, and genetic methods will provide ways to engineer more varity when desired. The new crops will also help small farmers around the world to use inexpensive ways to avoid needs for pesticides and grow high yield crops for a global market, and not rely so much on imports from the U.S.
Religion can never provide reasons for doing anything if there aren't also valid non-religious reasons, so mixing plant and animal genes is not a problem. Farmers around the world will have a choice, use the new better crops for higher, better yield, or reject them to stay more traditionally organic and gradually be replaced by those who use the newer methods. Humans have long been modifying crops for taste, appearance, pest resistance, shelf life, and yield. Now with genetic engineering we can do all those things better and find ways to fix some of the problems that came from the older weaker methods. Some countries might want to stop human progress here, but they will just be leaving an opening for other countries to do the work and reap the rewards.
Farmer "choice" is also a lie. GMO crops can and have contaminated organic and conventional crops. The production of GMO's is controlled by corporate multinationals that have no interest in serving the hungry of the world. Thanks to seed patenting, the poor of the world can look forward to a future of paying for crops every year rather than saving their own seeds.
And genetic modification is not the same as conventional plant breeding techniques that require a natural cooperation between two breeds. Genetic modification in many cases splices two completely unrelated species.
My argument has nothing to do with religion. Your religion is summed up in your farcical statements about people wanting to "stop human progress." That's your dogmatic condemnation. Science and technique is your god. Get educated. Maybe these links will help.
http://is.gd/567au
http://is.gd/567hu
http://rajpatel.org/
Contamination is just pollin spreading as it naturally does, and the plants that are more insect resistant tend to survive more and pass on those traits even in the seed that is not purchased from those multinationals but was just pollinated from from pollin blowing into other farms. Splicing two unrealated species is combining different plants that had the same source at one time anyway from an evolutionary perspective. I agree with you about multinational corporations doing what they do for greed, and not to feed the world, but don't let that turn you against the technique. They do everything for greed, but that does not make every technology evil.
No, not every technology is evil and it is insulting that you would put those words in my mouth. Perhaps if there was truly a "magic bullet" in terms of GMOs, fine by me. But this technology is dangerous, and your characterization of it being "just pollin[sic]" is ludicrous.
These technologies are there to make money, not help people and this technology is not ideology-free and can not be separated from the intent of the powers that created it.
I am not trying to insult you. Please reread all our comments.
Without scientific work done in the past, the world would not be supporting the global population that it is today. Without the scientific work of tomorrow, the future population will be limited by war or starvation or plague. The problem is the rich owners of the multinationals pulling the strings. The solution requires two parts, political empowering of the masses instead of the rich, and science.
It's bewildering to me that this article - which is a book review, not a statement of my own beliefs - is read as "a pretty convincing argument for how valuable GMOs are." I suppose I should be grateful that my writing is seen as unbiased, but to read this book is to better understand the nuances of these issues. For the record, I think GMOs are an abomination, and I'm not speaking from a religious context. I'm looking at the ethics and facts. When you aren't worried about the damages inflicted by science - animal testing in pharmaceuticals, industrial pollution, unknown allergens and manufactured DNA in the food supply - I'm sure it's easier to say that these are all benefits to humans. Unfortunately, short-term "benefits" are rarely such, and many actions humans take damage the environment and lives of other species, which is hardly noble. For the record, humans also DO enforce what many other species eat. Look at factory farming - look at ANY farming. Look at pets and companion animals. To assume our choices exist outside of other types of animal food production and consumption is inane.
Before you assume that "farmers around the world will have a choice" in these matters, consider that they already do not. Expensive and patented seeds have run many small farms in the U.S. out of business, "terminator" seeds have ruined businesses in both the majority and minority world, especially in the recession; and GMO contamination is anything but "natural." There is a reason GMOs are opposed in other minority world countries and largely unavailable in Europe. I can't buy GM foods from the market here because mandatory GM labeling makes those products unsellable when they share shelf space with non-GM products. No, this issue is not wholly cut and dry; nothing is. But my intention in writing this is to examine that it IS about a larger framework for our actions as humans, as people who will hopefully act in ethical ways and make informed choices that benefit both ourselves and others - human and non-human alike.
Brittany, I think you have to separate the science from what the multinational corporations are doing. These scientists are not working on new weapons systems. They are working on issues of health and food. You can oppose what the companies are doing, and I do too, but if you oppose scientific research, that leads to complications. Science is discovering new tools to understand life, and even to take it apart and put it back together in different patterns, and learning what kinds of things can be done. This might be frightening, but you can't stop it, and you can't legislate it out of existance. Manufactured DNA in the food supply might be a good or a bad thing, you have to look at it on a case by case basis. If you just say GMOs are an abomination, you might be taking yourself out of the rational discussion of the topic.
These scientists are not free of ideological constraints. They might have noble intents, but they are funded by corporate bodies.
"This might be frightening, but you can't stop it, and you can't legislate it out of existance." Ah yes. You can't fight progress and anyone who does is an irrational crazy.
For the record, there's plenty of research that should never have been done. The scientists who worked on the atomic bomb, for example, likely had good intentions. Yet, they were working for a state that wished to use the a-bomb as a big stick on their way to power. The atomic bomb murdered thousands of people with two bombs. We would have been better off had it never been done. But I guess for you the ends justify the means and you can't stop progress, anyway.
I don't think you can use scientific work on weapons development as a reason to be opposed to scientific research on food production.
It's not. It's an example of good intentions versus murderous results. I am also not against research as such--but I am opposed (as you should be, indeed everyone should be) to research done with the intent to dominate and control under the guise of "efficiency" and profit.
Yet, we could draw a comparison here. What is a "weapon" exactly? Merely something used for the expressed purpose of killing? Or can other things that slowly inflict violence and subjugate other people weapons as well? The foods being developed are indeed being used as weapons on the worlds poor by corporate elites. These corporations wish to have as big a market share as possible and control of the world's food supply would ensure this. Terminator seeds, especially, make sure that those people have no means to save their own and force dependence and eventually subservience to corporate empires. Indeed, weapons aren't merely swords or pens, but can come in the form of testubes and gene-guns as well.
So we the masses shouldn't reject science because the corporate world is using it against us. We need to use science to fight back. Genetic engineering will be a great tool when used for the good of all.
We have long been told government is bad and business is good, but the corporations do everything for more profit and with little regard for other people. Our nation has been withdrawing from anyting that doesn't help the rich get richer, such as killing the supercollider and transfering the science of physics to the European union. If the government got more involved in genetic engineering, they could do it for the benefit of the people and the world, instead of as a way for the rich to raise the gap.
Genetically modified organisms is the true meaning of intelligent design.
Hey this is a very intresting pot, never thought aboy it like this.
Keep em coming
Maria
123 power system
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.